New Sea Dweller case thickness

[Andad]

So far the caliper measurements are:

..SD.......SD4K.....SD50.....DSSD
14.7.......15.1.........?.........17.1

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by MCOSUB

Agree. This is why I sold my SD for my current DSSD. Case depth doesn't bother me in the least as I don't wear dress shirts for work and my wrist is 8.25" but it seems to be a big deal to many on TRF.

I will always acknowledge that overall watch thickness is a factor when making a final choice.
It's just that the thicker you go, the more important it becomes exponentially.

I personally would always draw the line at the thickness of the DSSD as I find it manageable.
Rolex did a very good job of making it wearable.

[GB-man]

Too many engineers on here

[Dirt]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Too many engineers on here

And retired Marine Engineers as well

[Dr.Brian]

Originally Posted by GMT13

Supposedly same thickness as SD4K.

It's definitely thicker than the SD4k. If you look at the side of the new case, in a good side photo from ABTW or elsewhere, you can compare the size of the HRV to the case size and compare it to the current or previous model. It's at least 1mm taller, possibly 2. That's a deal breaker for me. My SD thickness is more than enough thanks to the bubble back.

[yjfang]

If the SD50 is too thick, I am going to pass. I hate thick watches except for maybe Panerai (better proportioned).

[Magwitch]

Personally, even though the DSSD is a large watch, I have not found it obtrusive. Of course I am lucky enough to have a job where I can wear pretty much whatever I want and I never wear a dress shirt. I think I have one somewhere, along with a suit, in the closet. I'm sure neither of them fit. Besides I am retiring this year. No more work.

[lhawli]

I truly believe that had Rolex retained the same thickness as the SD4K or less, it would have been a bragging point for their marketing scheme!

Clearly they provide all sorts of hints to the dimensions but left out the thickness. Even with ABTW reviews and other reviews omit any mention of the thickness as per Rolex instructions.

This is a clear indication that it may very well be likely to be thicker than the SD4K.

The more this watch is materializing, the more I am coming to terms with the fact that the sub is the true and timeless classic diver EVER! Not that I ever doubted that anyway


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Hwkaholic]

Originally Posted by Magwitch

Personally, even though the DSSD is a large watch, I have not found it obtrusive. Of course I am lucky enough to have a job where I can wear pretty much whatever I want and I never wear a dress shirt. I think I have one somewhere, along with a suit, in the closet. I'm sure neither of them fit. Besides I am retiring this year. No more work.

I agree. I had a Pelagos and worried that the SD4k would be too tall. The Pelagos wore much larger even though it isn't as tall as the SD4k. That said, if the new SD is indeed 16-17mm tall, I don't think that it will wear as large as the measured dimensions. I can fit my SD4k under a shirt cuff much easier than I could my Pelagos.

I would venture a guess that the new SD doesn't "feel" or look as large as a Pelagos even though by terms of known width the new SD43 is indeed wider.

The new SD looks to have more contoured lugs (downward curving) which could make it wear better IMO than the flat lugs of the SD4k.

For reference, (not my pics). Note that the Pelagos is on a NATO so that makes it taller. But it looks massive next to an SD4k.

[phillycheez]

It's true the sd4k doesn't wear as thick as people think. It's because the side profile is thin. It's the case back and 1m raise of the crystal that adds to the height.

Everyone who has noticed the sd4k on my wrist were surprised and confused when they noticed how "thin" it looked.

So unless you have a bone protruding out on top of your wrist the sd4k will look flush down to the case. Another advantage of the case back design is no more crown digging........

The pelagos has a thick side profile with a flat case back. There's a big difference in both visually and how it wears.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[BJHofkin]

These are crucial points that I can't believe didn't come up right away.

1. The protruding caseback is significantly smaller in diameter than the case as a whole, so it sits down in the fleshy part of the wrist and makes the watch wear thinner.

2. The raised crystal doesn't contribute ONE BIT to how the watch actually wears thickness-wise.

Put these two things together and you have a watch that wears SIGNIFICANTLY thinner than the DSSD and much more like the 16600/116600 – and a qualitative comparison confirms how much thicker the DSSD wears:

116600


126600


116660

Originally Posted by phillycheez

It's true the sd4k doesn't wear as thick as people think. It's because the side profile is thin. It's the case back and 1m raise of the crystal that adds to the height.

Everyone who has noticed the sd4k on my wrist were surprised and confused when they noticed how "thin" it looked.

So unless you have a bone protruding out on top of your wrist the sd4k will look flush down to the case. Another advantage of the case back design is no more crown digging........

The pelagos has a thick side profile with a flat case back. There's a big difference in both visually and how it wears.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[sechsgang]

^^^Yep. This thing isn't going to be nearly as ridiculous as a lot of you guys are making out...It will be a hair beefier than the 40mm SD4k and have just a little more width, which the thicker bezel will take a good 1mm out of perception wise with ease. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes a pretty big hit specifically because of it's size. Just to mention, I think the 44mm SDDS is way too thick however not too wide, just for perspective.

[waterman1]

Looks like a perfect size. 16.5 thickness is my guess. May be the sweet spot.

[Smarties]

I hope thickness stay the same as 116600.

[Bernie.H.]

Ariel Adams doesn't seem to be stating that it excessively thick ?
IMG_3446.jpg

[VicLeChic]

Originally Posted by Hwkaholic

Could be that what was at Basel were prototypes and not yet production scaled?

Or maybe Rolex henchmen "eliminated" all people walking in with calipers.

Can you imagine? People fiddling with their calipers and scratching Rolex watches across the booth

17mm is not a problem for me, my Cayman is 21.5mm thick (rated 3,000m though)

[Michael N Q8]

Can't we scale off the Cyclops (assuming is the same as a sub/GMT) to see how close the diameter is to 43, and this could also give a closer indication of the thickness?

[Hamish]

I think that it's a home run.
That's why I paid my deposit.
Only question in my mind is how long until Rolex change the 'Sea Dweller' writing back to white?

[Michael N Q8]

Based on pics of the SubC and the new SD, I assumed the cyclops size would be the same and scaled as follows:

[Seaotter]

Originally Posted by Michael N Q8

Based on pics of the SubC and the new SD, I assumed the cyclops size would be the same and scaled as follows:

LOL

Great job ! 👍

[brandrea]

My head hurts

[G'ed]

Originally Posted by GB-man

Too many engineers on here

True

[AK797]

Originally Posted by Hamish

I think that it's a home run.
That's why I paid my deposit.
Only question in my mind is how long until Rolex change the 'Sea Dweller' writing back to white?

I don't think they will, they just want to bring the money in now, you can feel it.

[Smarties]

Just look at 50th anniversary Sub and Daytona.....

I don't see Rolex will change the red writing back to white in a few years!

Discontinuing an anniversary model is good for people who had already bought the watch. Rolex doesn't make any money from it.

In fact, if Rolex revert the red text back to white, the immediate reaction of people is to compare the new but usual model with the anniversary model. Needless to say, they'll regret not to buy it earlier. Those who are willing to pay inflated price will buy one from the secondary market while some others may lose interest in the watch as they refuse to settle for second best.

Rolex understand this completely, which is why 116610LV was launched to replace 16610LV.

[DSSD13]

I have both models of the DSSD (black and blue/black) and absolutely love the size of the watch. There is nothing wrong with the proportions of the watch itself, the only setback was the bracelet taper doesn't work with the skinny buckle. Both problems were fixed after I changed to a non-tapered bracelet. I'll never sell either one. I'll still pick up the 50th Anniv. one as a super Submariner, but it can't compare to the super specs of the DSSD! Just my 2 cents.

[vincent22]

Originally Posted by Dirt

As I predicted a couple of days ago.
The watch wont be much thinner than a DSSD and virtually not enough to tell between them on the wrist in all practicality.

The big down side will always be the protruding nature of the Case-back on the SD depending upon wrist shape.
That's why the DSSD sits flatter on the wrist due to the ingenious design of the Titanium Case-back. This inevitably improves the wear-ability of the DSSD

Yes, and the titanium case back is LIGHTER than stainless steel. So not only the thickness could be the same, the weight could be too

[G'ed]

SD4k on left versus new SD on the right. Both pic from Rolex. Assuming both HRV are the same, which one do you think is thicker?

[Toomanyms]

My head hurts

[Wcdhtwn]

The guy who owns my AD and the Rolex boutique in Houston was in Basel. He told his sales people the thickness didn't feel different that the SD4K, but he didn't have a measurement.

[jldc]

Any idea how the thickness compares to the Tudor Bronze, which is also a 43mm diver?

L